No one who is under the sun, a citizen of the United States or not, could ignore the United States’ presidential election of 2020 because it’s so polarized and contentious. Check out GZERO video right after the break on the discussion of what is going on while the presidential election (2020) is still underway.
I have a feeling that even though the West is trying to decouple from China, with job loss increases during an ongoing pandemic, I don’t see how a country like the United States can bring jobs home since unemployment is going to be high still. By this, I feel that with more people are relying on the government to create jobs and whatnot, bring jobs home mean companies in the United States have to hire more and spend more to produce anything. Meanwhile, China is once again increasing the output of their manufacturing, albeit that wages are increasing in China, the living costs in China are still way cheaper than the West, and so I think their wages won’t be rising to a point that foreign companies want to shift their manufacturing bases away from China faster. After all, producing in China does save on the costs of shipping and exporting.
Producing at home means that local companies have to be able to produce things cheaper than their foreign imports. Usually, import stuff should be more expensive than locally made since there are import costs and shipping costs that would add on to the top of the costs of the goods that are being made elsewhere. Unfortunately, it’s also depending on how productive a local manufacturing base is and other variables such as how cheap are the local wages and whatnot. Furthermore, we also have to worry about how is the local economy is doing. To add salt to the already infected wound, the COVID 19 pandemic is still an ongoing thing. So, I don’t see how decoupling from China is easy at all.
When we are trying to decouple from China, we should be prepared for China’s backlash such as how China would ramp up their distaste for foreign products even though most of these products are being produced in China. For an instance, China could ramp up the investigation into foreign companies that are actively opened for business in China, and by doing this China could persuade its people to trust less on foreign imports. By doing this China could also support their local economy through local made, and so in the long run China would be less exposed to foreign imports. I also see that China is producing much more stuff for foreign countries than foreign countries produce stuff for them — in a way why would China import more stuff when they could make everything at home?
As the United States tries to ramp up the pace of decoupling with China, China could see itself ramp up the pace of relying less on foreign imports. Meanwhile, China could also make it a lot harder for foreign companies to operate in China. At home, Western companies are facing the uglier local economy, and so these companies may not be able to produce higher revenues from local markets. Now, through geopolitical conflicts between China and the United States, it would make a lot harder for Western companies to make profits in China. Of course, Asia is a big place, and so Western companies should be able to ramp up their marketing elsewhere! The question is can other places replace the loss of the Chinese market?
Andrew Yang is not yet a president and still is only a presidential candidate for the Democrats, and yet he is already inspired people to give strangers a load of cash without any string attach. Check out a few good folks with the mindset of abundance who handling out $1K to random strangers in Harlem in the video right after the break.
Check out a new video on why Andrew Yang could actually make America great again through his Freedom Dividend proposal.
I’ve been following Andrew Yang on YouTube, and I was really excited about his debate on Thursday. I caught the debate late on YouTube while it was playing live on YouTube, and so I had to rewind the playback live video and try to see how the debate was going for Andrew Yang. I got frustrated to see Andrew Yang was so silent and not a lot of questions were being directed at him for the longest time. I felt he was so shy and shouldn’t be on the debate stage until I realized there is another YouTube video which he explained that his mic was deliberately turned off. Check out the YouTube video right after the break to see his explanation of why he wasn’t able to interject his points into the debate most of the time.
I didn’t finish watching the debate because I felt the whole thing was a joke! Now, I’m even more frustrated that they deliberately switched off his mic. Now, I can see why this whole thing is so rigged!
Update: I found another video shows why Andrew Yang couldn’t interject his points into the debate.
I don’t know much about JCPenney at all since I don’t shop there. Nonetheless, I couldn’t help but want to talk about it a bit. Recently, we have seen how Sears is struggling with its own survival, and so it is not a surprise for us to see JCPenney may fall into this same situation as Sears. Basically, if JCPenney isn’t able to modernize its own business model to fight against online giants like Amazon, JCPenney may as well eventually be just a memory.
I look at JCPenney’s stock today and I’m seeing it’s being listed around $1.28 a share. This used to be $80 stock back in 1999 and in 2006. So, the question is, what has changed?
Has JCPenney fallen victim to online giants like Amazon? I partly think so but not really 100% convinced that it is 100% the fault of online giants. If you take a look at Walmart, it doesn’t have to beat Amazon on the online platform to stay profitable! So, why Sears and JCPenney look so outdated?
I notice Kohls has done a very good job through its online platform, and so I think JCPenney could learn a thing or two from Kohls. Then again, Walmart still does rather well with its traditional bricks and mortar stores. So, perhaps it’s the combination of well managed both offline and online that could save brands like JCPenney?
Then we also have to look at a bigger picture such as why people don’t go to the mall as often as before! Sure, we can say it’s the online giants that kill off the malls! Nonetheless, the malls do have benefits such as entertainment and so forth. I notice in other countries such as in China, the malls are still very vibrant! Furthermore, Chinese do buy stuff through online platforms a lot. So, why malls in China are vibrant still?
I guess, if the malls are vibrant, stores like JCPenney and Sears could survive since they locate inside most malls! Nonetheless, as malls are closing down or getting empty, I don’t see how JCPenney and Sears and so forth could stay profitable when customers don’t even show up!
Here is the shot in the dark part! Could it be that our economy is doing poorly, people are no longer having a job for life but a job for a gig, and they shop online more — all of these factors come together to form a perfect storm which is killing off malls across America? The bigger issue is of course why are people no longer be able to have a job that they could work without worrying about being replaced by automation? Yes, automation is going to replace more people from their jobs!
Andrew Yang, 2020 presidential candidate for the Democrats, suggests that soon truck drivers, cashiers, burger flippers, lawyers, call center operators and a lot more will be replaced by AI and automation. Sure, things don’t look dramatic now since your neighbor may still have a normal job. Nonetheless, if the trucking business could save $160 some billion of dollars per year to just automate the trucks and get rid all of the truck drivers, why do you think this is not a good idea for them to do so? Perhaps, even Lyft and Uber drivers in the future will be replaced by self-driving, smart AI car too!
So, if it’s true that machines and software will eventually kill more jobs, then people will, of course, have less money to spend at shopping centers and malls. Do you think this will affect online platforms eventually? To me, it’s a common sense that the online platforms will also be affected by a poorer economy! Nonetheless, online platforms like Amazon could survive better since they got convenience on its side. For an example, frequent sales are just a few clicks away!
Sure, we can say that we like to blame the economy for our problems, but the truth is that the advance of technology and the convenience of shopping through online platforms have created a formula in which we are now seeing the decay of our economy. So, if we have a poorer economy, how can we not blame it on the problems that we see, right?
Andrew Yang suggests that through “Freedom Dividend” the government can help prepare the economy for a soft landing when the advance of AI and automation gets worse in the coming years. Of course, you can go on YouTube to watch his videos and see a more fuller explanation of his Universal Basic Income “Freedom Dividend” idea. Here, my shot in the dark is that I think even outdated stores like JCPenney could survive in a good economy! Perhaps, “Freedom Dividend” may offer people more options so they could wander their way into one of the JCPenney stores!
Andrew Yang said that “Freedom Dividend” will not be able to solve the bigger issues that the AI and automation spring forth. So, he also suggests in addition to “Freedom Dividend,” he also wants to see Medicare for all. Furthermore, he wants to abolish the usage of GDP as a measuring stick for how healthy an economy is. Instead, he wants to create a better measuring stick for the economy which measures environment sustainability, nutrition health of children, and so forth to capitalize on human well being instead of capitalizing the market caps, stock prices, and so forth. He thinks as AI and automation spring forth, the GDP number could go to the moon but more people will get fired from their jobs. Think about this, machines produce more things that will be counted toward the GDP number but the humans are not going to be able to participate in producing this number!
In summary, can Andrew Yang save the malls of America? If he can save the malls of America, this means he can save JCPenney and Sears and eventually the economy itself! Can his idea of “Freedom Dividend” provide a soft landing for the future economy where humans won’t be able to participate in producing things that can be counted as a contribution toward the GDP number? I’m very curious about all of this!